Skip to main content

BGP-LS Advertisement of IGP Traffic Engineering Performance Metric Extensions
draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-09

The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 8571.
Authors Les Ginsberg , Stefano Previdi , Qin Wu , Hannes Gredler , Saikat Ray , Jeff Tantsura , Clarence Filsfils
Last updated 2018-03-20 (Latest revision 2018-02-13)
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Formats
Reviews
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd (None)
IESG IESG state Became RFC 8571 (Proposed Standard)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-09
Networking Working Group                                L. Ginsberg, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                S. Previdi
Intended status: Standards Track                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: August 17, 2018                                           Q. Wu
                                                                  Huawei
                                                              H. Gredler
                                                                  S. Ray
                                                             J. Tantsura
                                                              Individual
                                                             C. Filsfils
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                       February 13, 2018

   BGP-LS Advertisement of IGP Traffic Engineering Performance Metric
                               Extensions
                      draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-09

Abstract

   This document defines new BGP-LS TLVs in order to carry the IGP
   Traffic Engineering Extensions defined in IS-IS and OSPF protocols.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

   In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation
   only when in ALL CAPS.  Lower case uses of these words are not to be
   interpreted as carrying RFC-2119 significance.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

Ginsberg, et al.         Expires August 17, 2018                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric  February 2018

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 17, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Link Attribute TLVs for TE Metric Extensions  . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  TLV Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Unidirectional Link Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.  Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.3.  Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV  . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.4.  Unidirectional Link Loss TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.5.  Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.6.  Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV  . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.7.  Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   BGP-LS ([RFC7752]) defines NLRI and attributes in order to carry
   link-state information.  New BGP-LS Link-Attribute TLVs are required
   in order to carry the Traffic Engineering Metric Extensions defined
   in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].

Ginsberg, et al.         Expires August 17, 2018                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric  February 2018

2.  Link Attribute TLVs for TE Metric Extensions

   The following new Link Attribute TLVs are defined:

      TLV Name
   ------------------------------------------
    Unidirectional Link Delay

    Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay

    Unidirectional Delay Variation

    Unidirectional Packet Loss

    Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth

    Unidirectional Available Bandwidth

    Unidirectional Bandwidth Utilization

3.  TLV Details

3.1.  Unidirectional Link Delay TLV

   This TLV advertises the average link delay between two directly
   connected IGP link-state neighbors.  The semantic of the TLV is
   described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Type                      |           Length                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |A|  RESERVED   |                   Delay                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:

                                 Figure 1

   Type: 1114

   Length: 4.

Ginsberg, et al.         Expires August 17, 2018                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric  February 2018

3.2.  Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TLV

   This sub-TLV advertises the minimum and maximum delay values between
   two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors.  The semantic of the
   TLV is described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Type                      |           Length                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |A| RESERVED    |                   Min Delay                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   RESERVED    |                   Max Delay                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:

                                 Figure 2

   Type: 1115

   Length: 8.

3.3.  Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV

   This sub-TLV advertises the average link delay variation between two
   directly connected IGP link-state neighbors.  The semantic of the TLV
   is described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Type                      |           Length                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  RESERVED     |               Delay Variation                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:

                                 Figure 3

   Type: 1116

   Length: 4.

Ginsberg, et al.         Expires August 17, 2018                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric  February 2018

3.4.  Unidirectional Link Loss TLV

   This sub-TLV advertises the loss (as a packet percentage) between two
   directly connected IGP link-state neighbors.  The semantic of the TLV
   is described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Type                      |           Length                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |A|  RESERVED   |                  Link Loss                    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:

   Type:1117

   Length: 4.

3.5.  Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV

   This sub-TLV advertises the residual bandwidth between two directly
   connected IGP link-state neighbors.  The semantic of the TLV is
   described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Type                      |           Length                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          Residual Bandwidth                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:

   Type: 1118

   Length: 4.

3.6.  Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV

   This sub-TLV advertises the available bandwidth between two directly
   connected IGP link-state neighbors.  The semantic of the TLV is
   described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].

Ginsberg, et al.         Expires August 17, 2018                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric  February 2018

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Type                      |           Length                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Available Bandwidth                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:

                                 Figure 4

   Type: 1119

   Length: 4.

3.7.  Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV

   This sub-TLV advertises the bandwidth utilization between two
   directly connected IGP link-state neighbors.  The semantic of the TLV
   is described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Type                      |           Length                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Utilized Bandwidth                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:

                                 Figure 5

   Type: 1120

   Length: 4.

4.  Security Considerations

   Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not
   affect the BGP security model.  See the 'Security Considerations'
   section of [RFC4271] for a discussion of BGP security.  Also refer to
   [RFC4272] and [RFC6952] for analysis of security issues for BGP.

   The TLVs introduced in this document are used to propagate IGP
   defined information ([RFC7810] and [RFC7471].)  These TLVs represent
   the state and resources availability of the IGP link.  The IGP

Ginsberg, et al.         Expires August 17, 2018                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric  February 2018

   instances originating these TLVs are assumed to have all the required
   security and authentication mechanism (as described in [RFC7810] and
   [RFC7471]) in order to prevent any security issue when propagating
   the TLVs into BGP-LS.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests assigning code-points from the registry "BGP-
   LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute
   TLVs" for the new Link Attribute TLVs defined in the table below:

    TLV code-point                 Value
   --------------------------------------------------------
    1114              Unidirectional Link Delay

    1115              Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay

    1116              Unidirectional Delay Variation

    1117              Unidirectional Packet Loss

    1118              Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth

    1119              Unidirectional Available Bandwidth

    1120              Unidirectional Bandwidth Utilization

6.  Acknowledgements

   The authors wish to acknowledge comments from Ketan Talaulikar.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
              Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.

Ginsberg, et al.         Expires August 17, 2018                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric  February 2018

   [RFC7471]  Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., Atlas, A., and S.
              Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
              Extensions", RFC 7471, DOI 10.17487/RFC7471, March 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7471>.

   [RFC7752]  Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
              S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
              Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.

   [RFC7810]  Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., and
              Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions",
              RFC 7810, DOI 10.17487/RFC7810, May 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7810>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4272]  Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis",
              RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>.

   [RFC6952]  Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of
              BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying
              and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design
              Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>.

Authors' Addresses

   Les Ginsberg (editor)
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   US

   Email: ginsberg@cisco.com

   Stefano Previdi
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   IT

   Email: stefano@previdi.net

Ginsberg, et al.         Expires August 17, 2018                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric  February 2018

   Qin Wu
   Huawei
   101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
   Nanjing, Jiangsu  210012
   China

   Email: bill.wu@huawei.com

   Hannes Gredler
   Individual
   AT

   Email: hannes@gredler.at

   Saikat Ray
   Individual
   US

   Email: raysaikat@gmail.com

   Jeff Tantsura
   Individual
   US

   Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com

   Clarence Filsfils
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Brussels
   BE

   Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com

Ginsberg, et al.         Expires August 17, 2018                [Page 9]